Confidencia wrote: For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it.

Let us destroy this basic "non-dualist" religious claim by Confidencia as a working example.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. All the evidence, ranging from Cosmic Background Radiation, the half life of certain elements, the cycles required to form third generation suns like ours and so on, all point to this age.

Life on Earth however is only 3.7 billion years old. Therefore is we pretend the first self replicating molecule "could observe the universe" (which is a stretch) there were no observers for the first 10 billion years of the Universe, yet we directly know the universe existed.

Therefore we can falsify Confidencia's silly religious claim in seconds.

There has always been an observer, your claims of falsification are null and void in that respect. But whether or not the universe has been here all those years can you verify its existence even for a day without the use of your memory? You are not even sure of the state in which you woke this morning let only 3.7 billion years ago. You are reeling off information that is retained in the memory of the consciousness. When I say the consciousness I do not mean the small minded person. Take away the collection of memories and you will find that the universe is only a mental construct, it is there for as long as you are interested in it. When you are not it is not.

Confidencia wrote: For something to exist there must be an observer to observe it.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Let us destroy this basic "non-dualist" religious claim by Confidencia as a working example.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. All the evidence, ranging from Cosmic Background Radiation, the half life of certain elements, the cycles required to form third generation suns like ours and so on, all point to this age.

Life on Earth however is only 3.7 billion years old. Therefore there were no observers for the first 10 billion years of the Universe, yet we directly know the universe existed.

Therefore we can falsify Confidencia's silly religious claim in seconds.

Confidencia wrote:There has always been an observer,

Complete crap. The early universe only had photons and hydrogen. There were no molecules to form any such "observer".

Confidencia wrote:...whether or not the universe has been here all those years can you verify its existence even for a day without the use of your memory?

Yes. And so can you. In fact, you do so every day.

It's not about whether the evidence of past events exists, it's about your confidence level in that evidence. Everyone questions that sometimes. Most of us find daily life easier to navigate if we aren't constantly asking ourselves if the supermarket even existed yesterday.

Confidencia wrote:...whether or not the universe has been here all those years can you verify its existence even for a day without the use of your memory?

Yes. And so can you. In fact, you do so every day.

Unless there is a memory based with content on what do you make your verification.? Memory is what you consult every day not the reality.

It's not about whether the evidence of past events exists, it's about your confidence level in that evidence.

Sure, if you trust your evidence you can prove anything as something willed and imagined for long enough is bound to become actual. It is in the nature of the consciousness to bring things into focus.

Everyone questions that sometimes. Most of us find daily life easier to navigate if we aren't constantly asking ourselves if the supermarket even existed yesterday.

Of course, no more than I have to ask the question do I exist. That is a moot point. Your daily life is mostly automatic anyhow. The mind can work on many different levels simultaneously whilst navigating its surroundings, you also do this every day but you are mostly unaware of it.

The being is not the observer, the observer is in the being. but what you as the being observe is actually the body you do not or cannot observe the observer or its beingness because you are it.. Being does not exist in mental form since it is not a mental state. The being is the source of all mentation. The body is merely a rendition of brain consciousness, this is what you mistake for the observer.

Shen1986 wrote:

Confidencia wrote:Once you've understood this you should think of consciousness as a recorder and the mind its register and the brain its regulator. And you will have a better understanding of how consciousness functions. The mind arise in the consciousness and registers information so that the brain can hard wire it as a programmed function.

Evidence please for this. I mean real evidence not just some hypothesis which can be made up by any person who can talk.

What more evidence do you need than yourself.? You are conscious right? Is it an hypothesis that you become aware of something then retain it as memory? Are you going to deny that your brain regulates your heart rate and breathing?

Shen1986 wrote:

Confidencia wrote:Nobody and nothing we know externally produces this consciousness, yet it is at the root of everything sensate. It came from nowhere and it goes nowhere, so it is always the case. From the brains perspective a loss of this consciousness is merely a lapse in memory, the consciousness has not gone anywhere. It is always the case.

Contradiction. There is no nowhere. There is always somewhere or something.

Sustained. Only in your mind there is always something and somewhere. Somewhere and something are related to space, each one presupposes the other. Beyond the mind where is time or space? Something is related to somewhere and somewhere is related to something. Beyond the consciousness these definitions do not apply.

If there is consciousness there must be a source even religions folks have it sorted out that consciousness comes from god or gods or is a reincarnation etc.

Do not worry about the others, question your own validity. Consciousness cannot be the source of itself or the source cannot be an object in the consciousness. Similarly a water droplet cannot be in the water as a droplet. Potentially it is there but in actuality it is not. The droplet cannot be there unless there is a water source to manifest it. Likewise consciousness cannot be there in its various forms unless there is somebody there to observe it.

So your definition of consciousness is merely nothing and gives no answers at all which again brings me to the conclusion that your hypothesis is false because it gives no answers.

Who said I was giving you an hypothesis? The mind is not interested in answers only questions.

Shen 1986 wrote:

Confidencia wrote:The brain function via memory, out of this memory patterns are created. When the brain partially shuts down or is in trauma these patterns are temporarily or permanently suspended. In the case of a trauma where the structure of the brain has been compromised the brain attempts to repairs itself. Where there is irretrievable brain damage the consciousness simply move out of that body and remains dormant for a while. From the perspective of consciousness if the tool is damage it cannot use it. The body is a tool of expression. Consciousness produces all forms fills them with life until they are exhausted. If you like you can call consciousness the soul since it is the major player in every events.

If you think about it it is only because we are governed by memory why the magicians and illusionists can do their tricks. The greatest illusionist is consciousness itself. You think you are here living an independent existence when really you are not. Modes of thought, ways of thinking, patterns of creation and destruction - their existence is rooted in memory. For instance, when you go to sleep at night you remember falling asleep but you don't remember the sleep why? Because you only know the memory pattern of going to sleep and waking up. As a person you are dependent on the memory patterns as part of your day to day functioning hence the reason why you ordinarily go blank when the brain partially shuts down as in sleep or swoon.

Why are you adding a new layer to the formula when its not needed?? There is no need for a consciousness/soul type when all are memories, our mind everything are just memories and the brain. This is like adding something special because you want to believe in something special so far there is no evidence that there is something special at all. Its just your believe and your wish full thinking that you want a special layer in it.

It is not a new layer, it is the foundation of all layers. It is because of your pre occupation with these layers why you do not see. But you are right there is nothing special about the obvious.

Shen 1986 wrote:

Confidencia wrote:You ask. "Why do I not remember my time in the womb"? Because you were never in the womb. The body developed in the womb along with its brain. The womb was the bodies environment hence the reason it did not need a fully functional brain during the time it was there, it had no use for one. In the womb it is attached to a fully developed body with a fully functional brain through out the gestation period. When this body is born it immediately starts collecting data for itself from its new environment. As the body grows the mind develops and utilises this information to form an identity. This identity is what we know as the person or personality. It is the consciousness that mistakes this identity of a person for itself. As a person you only know a virtual reality you are blind to what is real because the memory patterns that forms this virtual reality obscures it. It is not the consciousness that is at fault but the conscious experience (this virtual reality) generated by the brain

I was never in the womb??? Even Deepak Chopra agrees that we are born beings. We are born in wombs.

I am not talking about being in particular. What you call a human being is born in the womb. What you call a human being is merely a body, a corps. What I refer to is beyond being it is not in existence yet it is there since it cannot be denied.

Shen 1986 wrote:Also you did not define what consciousness is? You got here many contradictions and are just twisting because you did not define what consciousness is you claim here that its not the personality of the person that its not the mind of the person so what it is.

Consciousness is merely the medium in which everything appears. The mind, the person and its personality are all encompassed within this medium. It is a sort of awareness but not full blown awareness since it is limited to its reflection in the medium.

Shen 1986 wrote:

Confidencia wrote:This is way you can't trust conscious experience because it is rooted in memory. If you have to remember it then it is not real. You have to be aware that you are conscious to get the whole picture. To be conscious of awareness is only partial and based on memory. It is for this reason why I say it is inconclusive, you cannot effectively test a subjective experience objectively or an objective experience subjectively since they are both renditions of brain consciousness. You can only know it for yourself.

Good luck with your life then when you cannot trust even my own conscious experience. I am here truly amazed that you can write Confidencia or read because all this is done from conscious experience or even turn on the PC or mobile phone. So it end here for me.

It all happens by itself. You are under the delusion that you are the doer. Things happen to you not by you. Hence the reason why I do not trust my own conscious experience let alone anybody else's.

Shen 1986 wrote:

Confidencia wrote:Again it is not as if the consciousness has gone anywhere. If you become aware that you are conscious and remain aware of your consciousness you will remember your sleep and enter that state of waking sleep or OBE. When I say waking sleep I do not mean paralysis I mean you are aware that you are sleeping.

Shen 1986 wrote: So nothing new here. The response is filled with contradictions and I did not get a definition of consciousness or what it truly is or where it does come from. Even religion has some answers about their souls but nothing like this is found here folks.

Get yourself out of the picture and you will see where the contradiction lies and with the utmost clarity. Create some distance between you and the field of consciousness and your misunderstandings will be no more. You are looking for a definition that aligns with your preconceived ideas, you will not get that here. I'm only concerned with the fact of the matter and that just happens to be non verbal. All I can get you to do is turn around and look at what's behind you. As long as you are mesmerised with that which is in front your search will never come to an end, as it is all created on the fly out of the presences of your consciousness which is infinite.

It's not about whether the evidence of past events exists, it's about your confidence level in that evidence.

Sure, if you trust your evidence you can prove anything--

"Evidence" and "prove" are two words that can have complicated meanings, depending on what we're discussing. I do not consider things to be proven by evidence, only supported.

-- as something willed and imagined for long enough is bound to become actual. It is in the nature of the consciousness to bring things into focus.

Something willed and imagined is actual by definition. Thoughts are real things.

Everyone questions that sometimes. Most of us find daily life easier to navigate if we aren't constantly asking ourselves if the supermarket even existed yesterday.

Of course, no more than I have to ask the question do I exist. That is a moot point.

Most points are moot.

Your daily life is mostly automatic anyhow.

Mine isn't. Although you could define "life" in a way to say my life is automatic. But I'm using the term in the way most people around me use it, to describe the day-to-day things they do. My life requires a lot of input from me. You don't really know what my life entails, and are working on your own assumptions and guesswork.

Confidencia wrote: Unless there is a memory based with content on what do you make your verification.? Memory is what you consult every day not the reality.

This is where your sill religious claim completely fails. No human has to rely on their own memory. We can consult other humans, our books, our records, our historic environment and so on. These all provide a clear and stable history of what has happened before us.

Confidencia wrote:You are trying to convey an impression which comes across as arrogant.

You are an idiot. You came here saying we are suffering because we are "educated" and simultaneously claim to be "educating us" with your silly religious nonsense. Therefore, you are the arrogant hypocrite.

Confidencia wrote:"I already know out of my own experience as a scientist..."